I'm Jayjg. I joined Wikipedia on June 15, 2004, was made an administrator on September 13, 2004, and in July of 2005 Jimmy Wales appointed me to the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. I'm a pretty active Wikipedia editor, having made over 30,000 edits.

I believe the Arbitration Committee is an unfortunate, but necessary, last step in Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. In the past I've felt and raised concerns about the effectiveness of all of the formal dispute resolution mechanisms (including mediation, RfC, and RfAr). RfAr in particular has suffered from slowness (mostly related, I believe, to having far too many inactive members), and from decisions that tended to be too narrow to be effective (e.g. prescribing remedies on one specific article, when the issue is an editor's behaviour in general). I think it's important for Arbitrators to keep in mind that our primary and ultimate goal here is to create a great encyclopedia.

I have found the Arbitration process itself quite interesting, but extremely time consuming; reading through the evidence on a single case can take many hours. I've been actively involved in almost all cases started after my appointment to the committee; in addition to regular involvement in votes on whether to accept or reject case, and regular contributions to the Arbitration Committee mail-list, I've also worked on the Skyring, Alfrem, Gabrielsimon, Ed Poor, AI, Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek, Rktect, Rainbowwarrior1977, DotSix, Keetowah, Onefortyone, BigDaddy777, Everyking 3, Regarding The Bogdanov Affair, jguk 2, Louis Epstein, REX, Polygamy, Stevertigo, Lightbringer, Maoririder, Rex071404 4, Silverback, and Ultramarine cases. In the future I'd like to get even more involved in trying to build the workshop pages, which is where the decisions are crafted by the arbitrators, the involved parties, and any other member of the community who wants to make suggestions.

In light of some of the more mean-spirited, provocative "questions" you've been asked, as an arbitrator, what do you think is the best course of action for dealing with annoying, troublesome, perpetual trolls? -- MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC) reply

As an editor, I try to extend good faith until it becomes clear that it's misplaced; after that, I generally ignore them. As an arbitrator, I examine the evidence provided, review the relevant policies, add some common sense, and rule accordingly. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Why do you think you attract so much criticism as being an editor who agressively pushes pro-Israeli POV? How would you deal in situations where you are asked to arbitrate in disputes regarding this particular area of special interest for you? Unbehagen 12:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Given that the majority of your 35 or so Wikipedia article edits to date have been devoted to edit-warring on two articles, "Zionist terrorism" and "Israel-occupied territories", often reverting me, perhaps you should consider the possibility that your view of both Wikipedia and me are quite narrow, and your premises mistaken. As has been suggested before, please review the Fallacy of many questions and Begging the question. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Please review assume good faith and try answering me in a civil manner. I note that the "edit warring" you refer to was mostly with you. Indeed you have been censured for edit warring by the arb com itself - which I have not. Would you hold this out to be fit conduct for an Arb Com member? Unbehagen 23:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Jayg - Do you recieve payment whether in money, credit or other intangibles for editing, working with, or performing administrative tasks on Wikipedia from any party? Unbehagen 20:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC) reply

LOL! No. Why, are you willing to pay me to do so? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the answer. Being honest I dont think it would be a big deal if you were. I'm quite active in the Open Source Software community. We have lots of guys who are paid by their companies to produce OSS. I would have struggled to find a difference here. Unbehagen 14:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Jayjg, my compliments on your hard ArbCom work so far. I would like to hear your views on one matter in particular, in extension of MPerel's question above. I recently came accross Raul654's Laws of Wikipedia. On this interesting page Mark makes some incisive observations about the dynamics of the Wikipedia community. Of particular interest is the first law:

Much of Wikipedia's content, and all of the day to day functions are overseen by a small core of the most dedicated contributors. These users are the most valuable resource Wikipedia has.

Corollary - Of these highly dedicated users who have left, the vast majority left as a result of trolls, vandals, and/or POV warriors - typically not as a result of any one particular user, but from the combined stress of dealing with many of them. Consequently, such problem users should be viewed as Wikipedia's biggest handicap.

I believe it is the view of many users that a well-functioning conflict resolution process on Wikipedia is still miles away. For example, there is no moderation of note on requests for comment, allowing cases to sizzle for weeks until they die out without clear resolution or consensus.

Having worked on various controversial articles in my areas of expertise I can understand why some dedicated users burn out or depart in exasperation. What measures do you think should be taken to streamline dispute resolution? Do you think it is time for the ArbCom to pass verdicts on NPOV disagreements to stop disruptive edit wars? What role does the ArbCom have in protecting the "highly dedicated users" Raul654 describes? JFW |  T@lk 21:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC) reply

As I said in my candidate statement, I see the weaknesses in Wikipedia's dispute resolution mechanisms as a serious issue, which is why I think it's so important to have a functioning Arbitration Committee. Raul654 is quite right: many "highly dedicated" (and I might add, highly contributing) editors have been driven away by trolls, vandals, and POV warriors. That said, I still don't think the correct solution is for the Arbitration Committee to get into content disputes, which often require expert knowledge to resolve properly. Rather, I think Wikipedia has a set of content policies ( WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V) and guidelines ( WP:CITE), and behaviour policies ( WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL) and guidelines ( WP:FAITH, WP:POINT) which, when adhered to, make it extremely difficult for disruptive editors to have their way. Nevertheless, for editors who refuse to abide by these policies and guidelines, yet are smart enough to avoid being pure vandals or so outrageously disruptive that they are banned by community consensus, there must be a highly functional Arbitration Committee, which can examine these issues and rapidly and accurately rule on them, in order to ensure that policy is respected. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Thank you, Jay. Would you support ArbCom-appointed mediators with an expertise in debated subjects to provide mediation as an ArbCom proxy in situations of content dispute? JFW |  T@lk 01:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC) reply

I've been intermittently involved in discussions about how one could go about ensuring accurate content. As it stands, I have concerns about this idea's practical usefulness. Wikipedia has hundreds of thousands of articles, certainly tens of thousands of areas of "expert knowledge" - how would one go about finding and appointing experts in each area? How would one ensure that they really were experts, and unbiased (experts can often be biased as well)? And, even if they weren't biased, how would you assess the inevitable complaints from holders of minority views that the experts were biased? Other encyclopedias deal with this issue by simply appointing an expert to write an article; given that we are not going to follow that route, I think it is more practical to simply insist on adherence to our content policies (e.g WP:NPOV, WP:V) and guidelines. It might be easier to create a committee which ensured adherence to those policies, and that committee would not necessarily need to be made up of experts in the specific subject areas. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Many policies contradict and overlap with each other, and then WP:IAR makes things even more complicated while making them paradoxically more flexible. When two or more policies apply and conflict, what do you do? karmafist 18:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC) reply

In my experience, the policies generally don't contradict one another; rather, they tend to support each other, and, as a whole, are an excellent foundation upon which a great encyclopedia can be built. Of course, if there are any contradictions, the only solution is to use common sense. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Hi Jay, you edit some of the most contentious articles on Wikipedia: those about the Arab-Israeli conflict, anti-Semitism, Zionism, and related areas. This means you’re used to dealing with conflict, because the nationalist, pro-Israeli editors feel their POV is under-represented, while the pro-Palestinian editors look at the same article but see the opposite, so neither "side" is ever happy and you’re stuck in the middle. Then there are the trolls and disruptive editors, who focus on you because you stand up to them.

Can you say something about whether your experiences have helped you understand how to handle conflict, and how that understanding would help the arbitration committee and the community if you were elected? Can you also say what it feels like to have to constantly fend off the trolls and the bad-faith users, because it’s clear that some of them target you, even to the extent of trying to turn this page into yet another platform for their attacks. We’ve had a spate of good editors leave recently because of the stress of dealing with disruptive editors, but you’re still here: do the attacks upset you, and if they do, what keeps you going? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC) reply

In answer to your questions:

1) Have your experiences "helped you to understand how to handle conflict"?

Absolutely. What it has taught me more than anything is how important Wikipedia's policies are. I've never seen a dispute that didn't resolve itself when everyone started editing in accordance with the policies, or wouldn't have been resolved had everyone done so. That's why the work of the Arbitration Committee is so important, because it's there to uphold policy, and the policies are the only things that ensure that Wikipedia doesn't turn into a POV rant or personal blog. Sometimes, when there has been a lot of emotion on a page, and there always is when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict, there's a sense of relief all round when people start applying the WP:NPOV and WP:NOR policies. The editors on each side start to respect each other, even if they’ve been fighting hard; they start to read and evaluate each other's sources instead of letting everything get personal, so the whole experience becomes more intellectual and more enjoyable. I've seen sworn enemies develop long-term mutual respect after editing experiences like that - it's actually quite moving. And then just as everything settles down, a new editor arrives on the page, and it all starts up again. :-) Jayjg ^(talk) 00:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC) reply

2) "How that understanding would help the arbitration committee and the community if you were elected?

I have a solid understanding of our policies. I would continue to enforce them rigorously and continue to be even-handed in doing so. People have asked whether I could do that fairly in disputes involving the Arab-Israeli conflict and the answer is definitely yes, because so long as the policies are applied, they almost always suggest their own answers. But having said that, one must use common sense as well. I'm not afraid to support stern remedies for bad-faith editors who are trolling and wikilawyering. I have made more edits than any other Arbitration Committee member, and I edit in areas of Wikipedia that attract passion and controversy. I feel I have the experience and maturity to be able to tell the difference between the editors who care about Wikipedia but might have been goaded into making an error, and the ones who are essentially troublemakers who contribute little or nothing to the project. I'd try to make sure that common sense always wins the day, and what that means in practical terms is that if you appear before the arbitration committee with good intentions, a history of good edits, and are open and honest, you'll find that I'm likely to give you the benefit of the doubt, even if you've made some mistakes. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC) reply

3) "Do the attacks upset you, and if they do, what keeps you going?"

Well, I do find them upsetting – not so much because of what they say, but because of the obvious malice that underlies them. It's disappointing to know there is so much hatred in the world. Still, when it happens, I try to keep the words of Epictetus in mind: "If you hear that someone is speaking ill of you, instead of trying to defend yourself you should say: 'He obviously does not know me very well, since there are so many other faults he could have mentioned'". :-) Jayjg ^(talk) 00:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC) reply

In response to Slim's conflict-resolution question, you said What it has taught me more than anything is how important Wikipedia's policies are. I've never seen a dispute that didn't resolve itself when everyone started editing in accordance with the policies, or wouldn't have been resolved had everyone done so. Some policies are obviously essential to conflict resolution ( WP:NPOV) and some are not ( WP:COPY). Which do you regard as essential? (07:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC))

Sorry, Charles, just noticed this. If you're talking about article content issues, while I agree that WP:NPOV is a critical polocy, in terms of resolving disputes I think the key policies are WP:V and WP:NOR. Once people start citing reliable sources, rather than giving their own opinions, most content issues almost melt away. Of course, if everyone is also observing WP:CIVIL, it helps a lot in coming to agreement. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia currently has sufficient resources and policies to deal with vandals and blatant trolls. However, there exists a population of users who may act uncivil and "trollish", but also contribute positively (to varying degrees) to Wikipedia. These users may obey the letter of policies, but excel at violating the spirit of them (i.e. "If a policy doesn't specifically prohibit an action, I can do it.") Often, these "semi-trolls" can take an immense amount of time and effort to deal with (by admins and other users). Without discussing any specific cases, how do you think the ArbCom should handle these users? Carbonite | Talk 16:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC) reply

You're right; in fact, this is often what the Committee ends up having to deal with, "grey area" editors, who are not quite disruptive enough to get banned by community consensus, yet sufficiently disruptive that other editors eventually feel it is worth the effort (and risks) involved in taking them to Arbitration. In the past the Arbitration Committee's remedies have tended to be fairly restricted in their scope, focussing on a single article, or perhaps a single subject; subsequent to the ruling, the individuals have simply switched their attention to some other article or area, and it all starts again. Recognizing this, I have been working hard to ensure that the Committee focuses on general behaviour, and crafts broad enough remedies that the behaviour itself ceases, so that other editors are not constantly running into this problem, wasting more time, getting more frustrated, etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Several questions by other authors that appear critical of you, including this one have been removed by several well known administrators. Does this indicate that you are part of a clique/cabal?

The questions involved appear to be indicative of several disputes. Would you say you are a controversial figure in wikipedia?

The following questions are for each candidate, and do not specifically target you

Do you hold any strong political or religious opinions (e.g. concerning George Bush, Islam, or on which end you should break a boiled egg)? If so, would you recuse yourself from cases centred on these?

I have strong opinions on almost every subject; sometimes they're even well-informed. ;-) As for recusal, I think the key is to know yourself, and know policy. If you stick to looking at the evidence, and ruling on policy alone, it's hard to go wrong. In cases where I have been asked to recuse, I have also sought and followed the advice of all of the other members of the Arbitration Committee (past and present). Jayjg ^(talk) 23:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply

How willing are you to contest the decisions of other arbitrators rather than just "go with the flow"?

Yes, and I have done so. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Do you view all requests to re-address cases, particularly requests made by those most penalised, as being automatically without merit?

No, of course not. I evaluate each of them on their individual merits. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply

In the case against Yuber, it was decided by the arbitration committee that it is the duty of arbitrators to investigate, and rule on the behaviour of not only one party involved, but all of them. Do you support this decision? [if current arbitrator] Does your visible behaviour on recent cases reflect this decision?

I've actually been a strong opponent of the Arbitration Committee "making" cases rather than ruling on them. I feel that it is critical to keep the investigative, prosecutorial, and judicial branches separate. If judges are also police and lawyers, it puts too much power in the hands of the judges. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply

--Victim of signature fascism 16:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Have you been the subject of any rulings by the arbitration committee? If so, what were they all, and why was each of them made [links to the specific cases will be sufficient if you would prefer not to give a detailed answer]? -- Victim of signature fascism 17:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Do you believe that activities by editors outside of Wikipedia are relevant to a determination of whether a given user is a disruptive Wikiuser or "troll"? Should those activities be monitored, and if so by whom? Could you please comment on the banning of User:Amalekite in this context, and any infractions committed by that particular user within Wikipedia. Also, could you cite an example of where you have ever disagreed with your fellow candidate User:Jpgordon on what to do with a problem editor? Bdell555 07:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Bdell555, it appears from your questions that you might be labouring under the misapprehension that User:Amalekite was banned for disruption or trolling. In fact, as I understand it, he was banned based on Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Personal attacks which place users in danger, which specifically includes "actions outside the Wikipedia site". Regarding your question about Jpgordon, I don't recall having any discussions with him on what to do with "problem editors", so I really don't know what his position is on these matters, or whether it differs from my own. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Just to look more closely at your interpretation and endorsement of the "Personal attacks which place users in danger" policy, it appears that this Amalekite person simply listed a number of persons, identified by their Wikiuser IDs, as being, in his opinion, biased. Could you elaborate on how that placed the identified users "in danger". In this context, I should confess that in the past I have identified some Wikiusers as being both Polish and biased (against those who make claims about Polish history that place that country in an unfavourable light). Would I be banned from Wikipedia if I resumed editing? Bdell555 01:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Just to chime in a bit here Bdell555, actually he did not list them as, "in his opinion, biased", but rather, said that there is a [<nowiki>http://www.stormfront.org</nowiki>/forum/showthread.php?p=2101118#post2101118 "Group of jews taking over Wikipedia"], and then proceded to list those users he regarded as members of the cabal, whether leaders or followers, [<nowiki>http://www.stormfront.org</nowiki>/forum/showthread.php?p=2101557#post2101557 here] all in [<nowiki>http://www.stormfront.org</nowiki>/forum/showthread.php?t=225536 this thread] in the Stormfront fora. In that thread as well as in these three: [<nowiki>http://www.stormfront.org</nowiki>/forum/showthread.php?t=187311][http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=183229][http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=225558] , he discusses various schemes for harassing editors with whom he and his ilk disagree, as well as various ways of either disrupting or [<nowiki>http://www.stormfront.org</nowiki>/forum/showthread.php?p=2105816#post2105816 illegally using Wikipedia]. Parts of this are covered here. Tom e r ^talk 01:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Q: How old are you and what do you do? (If student, please state what subjects you are studying.)

A: I'm in my forties and work in management.

Q: How many hours a month do you think you will need to be a good Arbitrator and are you really willing to put in the time?

A: I'd be willing to put in around 40 hours a month. There's a need for candidates able to put in the time to help craft the actual decisions, and I'd like to be part of that process, so I'd put in more time as the need arose.

Q: If chosen, you will need to arbitrate on disputes arising from the creation or revision of articles. Experience of creating and revising articles yourself, particularly where it has involved collaboration, is very valuable in understanding the mindset of disputants who come to arbitration. With reference to your own edits in the main article namespace, please demonstrate why you think you have the right experience to be a good arbitrator.

A: I edit in high-conflict areas, and as I've said above, having a thorough knowledge of policy is the best way to resolve conflict, and I have that. I've also developed a good sense of when an editor is acting in good faith and when not, and that experience has already helped my work with the Arbitration Committee.

Q: Please list out what other Wikipedia usernames you have edited under.

A: User:Jayjg1

Do you support the creation of a Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct as I have just now suggested at User talk:Jimbo Wales#A sincere question? - Ted Wilkes 18:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply

I think Sam Korn's answer and Snowspinner's answer pretty much sum up my feelings as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply

1. How do you view the role (and relative importance) of WP:Civility in the process of building a factually accurate encyclopedia? How do you view editors who are normally correct in article namespace, but who may be perceived as rude – including to longtime, popular editors and admins – on Talk pages and the like?
2. Do you have an academic background of any kind, and if so, in what field? How do you handle critiques from your peers and professors (assuming those aren’t one and the same), which may be sharply worded or otherwise skirt the edges of WP:Civility even if they are correct? Considering those professors who have recently had you as a student, what would they tell me if I asked them the same question about you?
3. What are your views on the proposed policy Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct? Whether you think it should be a formal policy or not, do you believe you would generally act in accordance with it? What aspects of it do you think should not be there, or to put it another way, are there any proposals there which you can think of good reasons to ignore on a regular basis? (Please date any replies to this question as the proposal may well change over time.)

PurplePlatypus 09:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply

1. I think WP:CIVIL is a critical policy, and one that is too often overlooked. While it does not ensure factual accuracy, it does help ensure that editors can improve Wikipedia in a collegial fashion.
2. While I spent a number of years at various universities earning various degrees, I have not been involved in that world in some time.
3. It looks more like a tool for wikilawyers and disgruntled editors who have been sanctioned to "get back" at the Arbitration Committee, than it does like a helpful policy. The edit history of the page confirms that.

-- Jayjg ^(talk) 23:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Do you support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights? ( SEWilco 05:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)) reply

No. The purpose of Wikipedia is to build a great encyclopedia, not some sort of experimental internet democracy. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC) reply

1. How much of your Wikipedia time do you plan to spend on ArbCom business?

1. If you were elected and had to spend most of your time in ArbCom delibations, which projects would you consider to be the most negatively affected by your absence?

1. To what extent would those projects be affected?

Tito xd^{( ?!? - help us)} 06:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC) reply

1. In the past few months I seem to have spent about half my Wikipedia time on Arbitration Committee business.
2. I'm not sure any have been, or would be, hugely negatively affected; there are many Wikipedia editors, I'm just one of them.
3. Well, I have noticed some vandalism or dubious edits on pages on my watchlist that has gone unnoticed for several weeks. Eventually I do seem to get to them.

-- Jayjg ^(talk) 23:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC) reply

1. What are your views with regards to transparency of ArbCom decisions?
2. Do you think that administrators should be treated differently to non-administrators in ArbCom decisions?
3. Do you think that someone who is critical of Arbitration Committee decisions is in violation of WP:AGF?
4. How would you handle a case in which you were personally involved?
5. Do you think that Arbitration Committee decisions should be able to be reviewed?

Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC) reply

1. They seem as transparent as is reasonable, given the competing issue of respecting privacy.
2. Well, in some ways, as trusted and long-term editors, they are held to a higher standard. In other ways, if they have made significant contributions to the project, they are perhaps sometimes given more of the benefit of the doubt. I think it tends to even out.
3. Hard to say; it all depends on what they criticise, and how they word their criticism.
4. I recuse from cases in which I am personally involved.
5. They are able to be reviewed, by Jimbo.

-- Jayjg ^(talk) 23:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC) reply

(Being asked of all candidates)

Do you believe that regardless of Jimbo Wales' own views on the matter, the community should be able to strip arbitrators of their position under certain circumstances, and if so, what circumstances?

The Committee serves at the behest of Jimbo; ultimately all authority devolves to him. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC) reply

As a corollory:Do you believe, regardless of Jimbo Wales' view on the matter, that a large number of signatories (e.g. 150 requesting censure against 50 supporting the arbitrator) to an RFC against an arbitrator is enough that the arbitrator should be judged as having been rejected by the community in light of their actions, and consequently for them to be forcibly stripped of their post?

See above. As many people have no doubt already said, voting is not consensus, and Wikipedia is not a democracy. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC) reply

wikipedia has a policy of NPOV. Excepting straw men, have you ever introduced a substantial opinion or fact that contradicts your own political or religious viewpoint into an article on a topic of which you have strong opinions, and if you have, how frequently do you do so compared to your other substatial edits to articles? -- Victim of signature fascism 01:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I haven't done a statistical analysis, but I do have many examples of edits I've made that contradict my own POV.

-- Jayjg ^(talk) 23:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I am asking these questions of all candidates:

1. Do you pledge to abide by the proposed recusal guidelines at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct#Recusal?

2. Are there any parts of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct that you do not agree with? If so, please describe in detail how you would improve them.

3. Will you please pledge to support expanding the number of seats on the Arbitration Committee? If not, how would you propose alleviating the present arbitration backlog?

4. Have you voted over at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Proposed modifications to rules? If not, why not? If so, please summarize your votes.

Thank you for your kind consideration of and answers to these questions. — James S. 06:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply

1. I recuse in all cases in which I am unable to adjudicate fairly.
2. I'm dubious of the entire document, for reasons listed above.
3. I think the Arbitration Committee should only have qualified and suitable members, regardless of the backlog. If there are enough qualified candidates to expand the Committee, then I'm all for it.
4. I didn't vote because I was already on the Committee, and didn't feel it would be appropriate for me to vote.

-- Jayjg ^(talk) 23:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC) reply

1. What's your opinion on desysopping as an ArbCom penalty?
2. How closely do you think admins should follow policy when using their special powers?

— Simetrical ( talk •  contribs) 01:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

1. I think desysopping is an appropriate remedy (not penalty) when an administrator seriously abuses his or her administrative privileges. Of course, that editor can re-apply for administrator status, and can regain it if the community gives him or her their trust once again.
2. Admins should always be careful to follow policy, and should be able to justify their actions within policy. Of course, one longstanding philosophy on Wikipedia is "Ignore all rules", policies can be tricky to interpret in grey areas, and applying common sense is also critical, so there is some leeway. Ultimately it is up to the Arbitration Committee to distinguish between actions which are violations of policy and actions which are not.

-- Jayjg ^(talk) 01:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Expanding on your second point, take the protection policy as an example. It states that protection is never supposed to favor any particular version, unless one is vandalism, and should never be used when the admin is involved in editing the page. If an admin thought that an addition to a page was patently ridiculous, removed it, and threatened to protect the page if it was restored, what would you say? — Simetrical ( talk •  contribs) 01:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Well, I don't want to "try" a case here without knowing all the facts. In general an admin should never protect a page in which he or she is involved in a content dispute, nor threaten to do so. That said, there might be specific circumstances in which this action might be more reasonable; for example, if the material being included is blatant vandalism (e.g. "Mark eats poop"), or could damage Wikipedia in some way (perhaps by being libellous, or by placing undue demands on the physical infrastructure). The plain fact is, if policy was 100% clear to all readers, and could be applied blindly in all cases, then we wouldn't need an Arbitration Committee. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The two examples you cited would seem to indicate that you hold a similar view of protection to mine. Based on that, what precisely about this RFC was "frivolous", exactly? — Simetrical ( talk •  contribs) 03:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

That was almost a year ago; frankly, I don't even remember the RfC, much less what my reasoning was at the time. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

What do you think of it now, then? — Simetrical ( talk •  contribs) 02:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

James F. have written in his statement the following:

"I strongly believe that the Committee's real purpose is to prevent further damage to the project by taking measures as we see fit, not to mete out some form of 'justice' as punishment of those deemed to have done wrong. Where I have considered banning people, it is not because I think that they "deserve" it in some way, but more that I regretfully doubt that their continued presence is not damaging to the project."

Are you agree with your colleague? If not, please explain you view on the purpose of the Arbitration Committee and the role of punishment.-- AndriyK 19:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I agree with James; the purpose of the Committee is not to mete out punishments, but rather to provide remedies for the betterment of Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply

User:Improv, who is also a candidate for the arbitration committee, has placed the following statement on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy):

I am concerned about templates surviving AfD that appear to contrast with established policy. In particular, I feel that these templates are Poisoning the well when it comes for how we treat our fellow wikipedians. There are circumstances where knowing too much about one's neighbours politicises how one deals with them. This is, to an extent, unavoidable in society, but wearing signs of hate as badges on our shoulders takes what is a small problem that we can usually deal with into the realm of being damaging to the community. Already, there have been signs of people refusing to help each other because they are on different ends of a political spectrum -- this seems likely to get worse if this trend continues. Some people cry that this is an attack on their first amendment rights (if they're American, anyhow), but that doesn't apply here because Wikipedia is not the U.S. government -- it is a community that has always self-regulated, and more importantly it is an encyclopedia with a goal of producing encyclopedic content. We have a tradition of respecting a certain amount of autonomy on userpages, but never absolute autonomy. We might imagine, for example, templates with little swastikas saying "this user hates jews". I am not saying that such a thing would be morally equivalent to this template against scientology, but rather that we should aim to minimise that aspect of ourselves, at least on Wikipedia, so we can make a better encyclopedia. The spirit of NPOV does not mean that we cannot have strong views and still be wikipedians, but rather that we should not wear signs of our views like badges, strive not to have our views be immediately obvious in what we edit and how we argue, and fully express ourselves in other places (Myspace? Personal webpage?) where it is more appropriate and less divisive. [1]

I am inviting all candidates, including Improv, to expand on this theme on their questions pages. Do you agree that this is a cause for concern as we move into 2006? How do you see the role of the arbitration committee in interpreting the interpretation of Wikipedia policy in the light of this concern? -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 20:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I am quite concerned about that. To begin with, any template which does, in fact, violate policy is an area for concern, and in particular I'm against anything which promotes bias, bigotry, or hatred. Divisiveness in general is bad, as it detracts from editing collaboratively and collegially, and we should try to avoid anything which factionalizes Wikipedians.

The issue of user pages is complex, because Wikipedia allows a lot of leeway in their contents. Nonetheless, they are Wikipedia content, and may even give the impression of being something official. While it's a nice idea to use your userpage to tell people a little about yourself (assuming you want to), userpages should not be platforms for attacking individuals or groups.

As for the Arbitration Committee's role, the answer is always pretty much the same; examine the incident(s) in question, review policy, and apply common sense. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply